Is Quentin Tarantino the new Benghazi in RW talking points?

[CTyankee]

Joe Scar is on a rant about that particular filmmaker in the whole gun control controversy and attacking Dems in Congress who won't agree with him. And he is getting as comical on Tarantino as he has been on Paul Krugman in the deficit v. job creation debate.

Unfortunately for Joe, he is losing on the debate with Krugman, as more and more people who know what they are talking about are directly challenging Joe and agreeing with Paul, and doing so to Joe's face on the show. There was one today. Schmoe refused to engage.

So just as Joe is getting a beat down on Krugman, he is ratcheting up his attack on Tarantino, whose films he conflates with violent video games. I noted that one of his panelists (not a lefty) challenged him on his basic assertion, saying young men in other countries watch violent videos but there is not as much gun violence in those countries because they have stronger gun control laws. Crickets from Joe.

Just as Benghazi went absolutely nowhere with the public back during the '12 campaign
and deficits are listed as far less important than unemployment as MJ's own polling shows, Tarantino will go nowhere as the RW's Boogeyman.

Joe, you are beyond silly...you are largely inconsequential...

[graham4anything]

1. What is needed is to ban guns/bullets from private citizens in the streets not the movies

I defend directors rights to do what ever, so QT is a bad example in this, as QT indeed is a smut peddler, nothing more, nothing less.
But I defend his right to make the crap he does, and it doesn't equate to the violence, which of course what needs to be done is to ourright ban guns/bullets from the streets, not from the movie theatre

He is NOT an artiste. He is NOT David Lynch, who is an artiste, and always has redemption that is real at the end of his movies.

Like the rightwing, QT invents his own history and while he cloaks it in satire, irony and farce, the movies he stole the original idea from are all 100% hard violence

QT is lowering the standard and loves like Eddie Haskell getting attention.

He also loves making $$$, and QT is nothing if not the 1%.

and he uses shock value, and shock scenes
(IE-the Christopher Walken WATCH scene in Pulp).

QT doesn't even hide it

The one great thing QT ever did though was bringing long time German Actor Christoph Waltz to America.
And knows music placement

But there is nothing highbrow about QT he is as transparent as any director I ever saw
aka QT is a hack.

BTW-the worst movie I ever had the displeasure to see was the recent Selena Gomez picture about Springbreakers. What a vile violent disgusting movie and to think anyone can just sneak in and see that.
I wanted to give the director a chance so i saw it not really knowing anything about it and well my mistake in that.

[Heidi]

3. Spring Breakers isn't a Quentin Tarantino film. (nt)

[graham4anything]

5. If you read what I wrote, I say its Harmony Korine right in the same sentence.

Single biggest explotative movie with not one character to root for.
and the single worst performance by any actor I have ever seen in the thousands of movies in James (if he is in it it sucks) Franco.

[Heidi]

6. And if _you_ read what _you_ wrote, you'll see that your post doesn't mention Harmony Korine at all.

After your nine-paragraph screed about Quentin Tarantino, you wrote only "the director" with regard to Spring Breakers.

You're welcome.

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:12 AM
Star Member graham4anything (6,794 posts)
What is needed is to ban guns/bullets from private citizens in the streets not the movies
I defend directors rights to do what ever, so QT is a bad example in this, as QT indeed is a smut peddler, nothing more, nothing less.
But I defend his right to make the crap he does, and it doesn't equate to the violence, which of course what needs to be done is to ourright ban guns/bullets from the streets, not from the movie theatre

He is NOT an artiste. He is NOT David Lynch, who is an artiste, and always has redemption that is real at the end of his movies.

Like the rightwing, QT invents his own history and while he cloaks it in satire, irony and farce, the movies he stole the original idea from are all 100% hard violence

QT is lowering the standard and loves like Eddie Haskell getting attention.

He also loves making $$$, and QT is nothing if not the 1%.

and he uses shock value, and shock scenes
(IE-the Christopher Walken WATCH scene in Pulp).

QT doesn't even hide it

The one great thing QT ever did though was bringing long time German Actor Christoph Waltz to America.
And knows music placement

But there is nothing highbrow about QT he is as transparent as any director I ever saw
aka QT is a hack.

BTW-the worst movie I ever had the displeasure to see was the recent Selena Gomez picture about Springbreakers. What a vile violent disgusting movie and to think anyone can just sneak in and see that.
I wanted to give the director a chance so i saw it not really knowing anything about it and well my mistake in that.

[Iggo]

19. Oh, but if it was....

...I would TOTALLY see that movie!!!

[Heidi]

22. Same here.

The art that I see and even enjoy doesn't dictate my morality. Nor is my own morality dictated by the screeds of peers who scream "exploitation" at contemporary art that offends their delicate sensibilities.

[CTyankee]

4. I don't go QT movies and never have. But I don't think we can treat this as

sui generis. Violence in drama has long been depicted as had gory, disgusting stuff in literature. I can tell you of some movies I wish I had never seen or books I had never read because they had a sickening effect on me. So now I read reviews and try to learn more about a film director's particular point of view before I make up my mind to see a film. Same with books.

Thanks for giving me the heads up on Selena Gomez. I won't be seeing anything she made.

[Heidi]

7. With QT, the messenger is too often attacked though the message is quite valid.

Re: Spring Breakers, I haven't seen it, but I can tell you that Selena Gomez is 20 years old. To write off a 20-year-old artist simply because she appeared in one particular director's film that you deem too violent is just too hasty, in my opinion.

Have you written off Anthony Hopkins, too, for "The Silence of the Lambs"?

[CTyankee]

8. No, but I was only going on what graham was telling me. I know nothing more

about her...not her age or anything else, for that matter. What graham told me didn't sound like something I wanted to see...that's really all...it's like seeing a performance of "Macbeth" with a gory, bloody dripping head on a pike in the last scene as opposed to the less gory way of presenting it. It's still Macbeth. Perhaps it is a case of "tail wagging the dog." Does the gore and violence serve a purpose beyond shock, or is it within the context of bloody, brutal struggle for power? That is pretty much my thoughts on the issue.

[graham4anything]

10. Did you see the 64 performances prior to Silence that Anthony Hopkins made?

Why would you in any way compare Mr. Hopkins to Selena Gomez?

Reminds me of the people who compare Justin Bieber to Bob Dylan on You Tube

I think Anthony Hopkins was 53 when he made Silence. He was already a major superstar
and the Lechter character was made in a failed movie with a different Lechter much earlier.

It only worked because of two superstars.
added to say-not to mention Mr. Hopkins being invited by the greatest thespian of all time,
Sir Laurence Olivier to his troupe for stage work on top of the 64 performances made before Silents.

And any who follows my above remark can see it wasn't referring to QT, but I have
no desire to bash Mr. Korine, as he had some really talented movies in the past, whereas QT never made a movie that wasn't exploitation.

He is an imitator who enjoys the money from the rightwing he makes as the rightwing doesn't know about satire/irony/farce, and on purpose, QT knows it. Which is why he makes it even bloodier and senseless.

Now, that doesn't cause anyone to be violent, but what it does cause is the rightwing
to flock to the movies, whereas a cerebral performance by Robert Redford languishes at the box office.

[Heidi]

13. You're no more a qualified film critic than anyone else here.

Get down off of your high horse.

[graham4anything]

15. No high horse to say I think QT is a peddler of ultraviolence to make $$$$ dollars for himself

and so he can sit back and enjoy the audience doing exactly what he intended it to do.

Remember at the end of the day, the movies he liberally takes his ideas from, not one of them was a farce, satire or ironic.

And all of them hold special love to QT, meaning he enjoyed the originals straight-on as those directors meant them.

The difference between Don Siegel and the early Clint stuff, and the later "Unforgiven"
and "Grand Torino" which showed the grownup mature thinking that , no
guns never saved anyone whatsoever.

Clint's trigger thumb(but no gun) finger bang in Grand Torino that captured the entire gang bullying the entire block said everything to repudiate all the prior violent gun movies and the later QT ones in one scene.

[JaneyVee]

2. Joe, let me know when high capacity DVDs start killing people.

[siligut]

9. The locked out of reality presentation of violence in QT movies may save lives

If the violently inclined use QT movies as instruction, their intended victims might have a good chance at living.

[graham4anything]

11. this response is what I mean. QT foisters conspiracy theories that are lunacy.

this follows QT warped, extemely warped, logic that if the Jews had guns there would have been no holocaust.

I am Jewish and that is 100% bullsheeet to have a conspiracy like QT did.

I know in my family, the only one who died HAD a gun, and he blew his own brains out with it, while the rest of my family left everything they owned(which in today's $$$ was probably worth 10s of millions or more) and came to America and started over.

To say that Jews would have been the monsters the Nazi's were is pure utter fantasy crap
and QT laughed all the way to the bank.

(not to mention that horrible accent Brad Pitt had).

It is offensive to the 6 million who died what QT made, though of course, he has the 1st Amendment right to make 1% type of mega millions off the backs of the 6 million Jews that died (and 20 million total).

Personally, would rather see Schindler's List or Letters from Iwo Jima for true stories of the times.

Not a NRA fan's gun version as Quentin Tarentino's Inglorius Bastards was.

[siligut]

17. QT is a lover of old exploitation films

And what he makes just seem to be high-quality exploitation films. I understand why you have your interpretation of Inglorius Bastards as you have explained your background.

I do not view the acts of the Jews in that film as monstrous. Nor can I imagine that the Jews would ever attempt a coup the way the Nazis did. Inglorius Bastards is a revenge exploitation film.

Again though, I do understand why you have the interpretation that you have and why you resent the film.

I also agree with you that Joe is beyond silly and largely inconsequential.

[graham4anything]

20. To a liberal who understands farce, irony sarcasm (and I do) however

the rightwing don't do farce, irony, sarcasm.

The rightwing actually believes all the Onion stories, and thinks any satire is real.

They take Colbert backwards sometimes too.
It is why QT is exploiting things to reap the benefits of both sides and he is very smart and knows what he is doing (which is why his movies make 100s of millions while others don't.
He gets all sides.

Whereas say, Robert Redford movies languish, and Sean Penn is only liked by liberals now.

QT gets the liberals who want to be in on the satire, and the far right who love the blood and killings.

And if one says, what about Mel Brooks, well, the truth of Mel is, he didn't make all that much money on the Producers when it originally was released and like Woody Allen, had only a select audience.

And the 70s didn't have the 24/7/365 hate media that is around now with Rush and Sean and Scarborough.

[siligut]

21. Maybe because they have been taught not to think.

I agree, something disconnected in their cognitive function.

I see what you are driving at and yes, it is a grave injustice to believe that the Nazis were ever in a "match" with the Jews.

QT capitalizes on making controversy sexy, they are called exploitation films for a reason.

Christoph Waltz elevates his roles to a new level, "That's a bingo".

[NewJeffCT]

12. What was he talking about?

it's not very clear from your post.

[CTyankee]

14. sorry I muddied it up...Joe was attacking violent video games and Tarantino movies

as contributing to gun violence. I think he is backing off a bit from his earlier stance where he seemed to part ways with gun enthusiasts in his party. Now he is attacking Dems in Congress for not "going after Hollywood." You know, the old Republican punching bag. Maybe he felt he had gone too far in wanting better gun control measures or some powerful people in his party "had a word" with him.

My reference to Benghazi was that Joe had joined that drumbeat with he fellow Repubs during the waning days of the '12 campaign. The voters simply didn't buy it. And I don't think they're going to buy the Tarantino deal either. I really don't think people care that much about Tarantino movies, any more than they cared that much for Benghazi (as a reason for hating on Dems). Neither one of those subjects are things that most Americans worry about.

[NewJeffCT]

16. violent video games are sometimes more popular

in other countries than they are in the US - yet, those other countries have a fraction of our gun crime rates.

[CTyankee]

18. Of course, and one of Joe's regulars said that today. I think it was Sam Stein. I had to

laugh. I thought "good luck with that, Sam" and sure enough, Joe just ignored him...